Vehicle suspension systems typically include structures that must resist forces tending to twist and/or bend those structures. Further, it is desirable that such structures be maintained in position relative to one another. That often means that the structures and/or their connection to one another need to be suitably reinforced. In many applications, it is also desirable to minimize the weight of vehicle components, including suspension components, in order to increase performance. What is needed is a structural reinforcement that is lightweight yet suitably rigid in application. Front forks for bicycles are an example of a component requiring rigidity in order to operate effectively. Each fork is connected at a lower end to an axle and at an upper end to a fork crown. However, as fork travel has been extended, an additional reinforcement has been added in the form of a fork brace extending between the lower fork legs of the front fork suspension unit. FIG. 1 is a Figure of a fork 10 and illustrates the brace 15 extending between the fork legs 20, 25. In the fork of FIG. 1, the fork legs are tubular and the brace is integrally formed between them in order to provide rigidity and keep the forks parallel to one another. The purpose of the brace 15 is to help maintain the fork legs in a substantially parallel relationship while they are being subjected to rider and terrain induced disparate loads.
FIG. 2 is a rear view of an integral brace 15 formed between fork legs 20, 25 and illustrates reinforcement webs 35 used in the brace. Because the fork assembly, including the brace portion is typically cast in one piece, manufacturing limitations prevent the brace from being formed into a tubular shape along with the two tubular forks legs. Instead, the brace 15 has a hollow back portion 30 that includes integral, web-like structures 35. The result is a reasonably rigid brace having additional weight due to the extra webs required to impart rigidity and having no contoured, attractive appearance when viewed from the rear. Such a brace does therefore fail to maximize rigidity between fork leg members while minimizing extra weight associated with such support.
There is a need therefore, for a fork brace that makes use of a tubular cross section even when a portion of the brace is integrally formed with tubular fork legs. There is yet a further need for a fork brace that provides a more contoured, attractive appearance from all angles.